If you won £625,000 would another £30,000 make much difference? What if the difference stood for something else? Would equality, liberties and principles be enough? These are the main focuses of the All England Club’s decision to pay women the same as men for winning a Grand Slam at Wimbledon.

“The time is right to bring this subject to a logical conclusion and eliminate the difference,'' says Wimbledon chairman Tim Phillips who appears to have made the right choice. The pressure from women campaigners such as Billie Jean King, Justine Henin and the rest of the women involved in tennis would definitely have been eased by the decision. A weight off his shoulders, you could say.

Phillips claims the decision is “good for Tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon.”

The steps taken by the powers-that-be at SW19 have been predicted for many years, especially with the US and Australian opens offering equal pay for both genders, and will be seen as the right thing to do in certain tennis circles.

No more controversy, then? Let’s get on with the tennis, right? Not quite. Of course, there should be no inequalities when it comes to the pay packet between men and women in today's society. No one should be forced to compromised pay because of their gender. Not if they’re doing the same job, that is.

In the 2006 Wimbledon championships, Amelie Mauresmo won £625,000 for winning eight matches over 20 sets,  a total of 142 games. She struggled. In comparison, Roger Federer also won eight matches, but over 25 sets and 205 games. He won relatively comfortably. So why should Mauresmo get paid the same as Federer for playing over 50 fewer games? If a woman was working for 50 fewer hours a month than a man in a ‘normal’ job, you wouldn’t expect the woman to get paid the same, would you?

The appeal of women such as Maria Sharapova and, for some reason, Anna Kournikova has drawn as much attention and excitement down the years as the likes of Federer and Andre Agassi. However, I don’t believe you can say the standard of play is of equal measure between the genders. A short skirt and a yelp may cause just as much excitement as a thunderous 156mph Andy Roddick serve, but probably for very different reasons.

Yes, Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in 1973 in the most-watched tennis match in history, dubbed the 'Battle of the Sexes' to start the belief that women are on a par with their male counterparts. And she, among others, has been campaigning for equal pay ever since. “It’s the right thing to do for the sport, the tournament and the world,” she said. The world? I’m not too sure - and neither is Tommy Haas. The current world number nine has some interesting views concerning Wimbledon’s decision. “I don’t think it’s really fair. I think the depth of men’s tennis is much tougher than the women’s,”  he said. And Haas’s defining point is that the men play over five sets, not three.

Mauresmo herself has said it's not a matter of how much time women spend on court but rather a matter of principle. Oh, and a matter of 30,000 extra gold coins, I guess. I’m all for equality in society and the sporting arena, so good on Wimbledon. I just feel that equal pay should really require equal exertion, equal skill level and equal accomplishment.

Should the women be paid the same as the men? Send your views to Sportingo.